Study Notes on Reflective Equilibrium and the Trolley Problem in Philosophical Contextualization

Abstract

Reflective equilibrium (RE) is a central method in philosophy focusing on the justification of judgments and principles through mutual adjustment.
RE is often conceptually vague, with limited explicit applications.
This paper presents a case study applying RE to reconstruct arguments from Judith Jarvis Thomson's "Turning the Trolley," which discusses whether a bystander should divert a runaway trolley, resulting in a moral dilemma.
Main findings:
1. One sufficiently specified conception of RE is applicable.
2. RE criteria impose real constraints on justification processes.
3. Applying RE enhances clarity and guides justificatory processes.

Fundamental ethical question: Should one kill one person to save five? Central to the trolley problem.
RE seeks justified answers by adjusting existing judgments and systematic principles.
Mutual adjustments occur until a coherent position is reached.

RE criticized for:
- Lack of constraints on justification (Kelly & McGrath, 2010).
- Methodological irrelevance (McPherson, 2015).
- Being trivial and uninformative (Williamson, 2007).
Critics often fail to address vague, underdeveloped conceptual applications of RE.
Purpose of this paper: provide an explicit, traceable RE application.

Adopt a rigorous RE-conception (Brun, 2013, 2020; Baumberger & Brun, 2017; Baumberger & Brun, 2021).
Distinguish between judgments (commitments) and principles based on function, not form.
Elements of RE: commitments, principles, background information.

Core idea: Begin with existing judgments and aim for systematic principles, adjusting each in a reflection process until coherence is found.
Conditions for being in a state of reflective equilibrium:
1. Resulting commitments and system are consistent and mutually support each other.
2. Respect input commitments adequately.
3. Resulting commitments must have independent credibility.
4. System must adhere to theoretical virtues like simplicity, accuracy, and consistency.
5. Supported by background theories.
6. At least as plausible as any alternatives.
Reflective equilibrium can involve changing commitments in light of the system without discarding the credibility of valid inputs.

Two alternating process steps:
1. Adjusting the System: Keeping commitments constant while aim to increase agreement with them and the system's theoretical virtues.
2. Adjusting the Commitments: Keeping the system constant while aiming to increase agreement with the current system and respect input commitments.
The process can be structured into initial input, current, and resulting commitments, identifying the difference and assessing improvements.

Selected for its manageable number of cases and explicit proposals for principles.
Focus on the reversal of Thomson's initial commitment regarding the Bystander's Two Options.

Comprises five initial commitments and two principles concerning moral justifications in fatal decision scenarios:
1. Judge's Two Options: Judge must not frame and execute an innocent person to save five hostages.
2. Trolley Driver’s Options: Driver must divert trolley to save five workmen at the cost of one.
3. Bystander’s Options: Bystander may divert trolley to save five at the cost of one.
4. Fat Man: Must not push a fat man to stop the trolley.
5. Negative vs. Positive Duties: Distinction characterized by higher moral weight of non-interference (negative duties).
Initial inconsistencies arise, particularly with diverging principles guiding these scenarios.

Thomson's Principles:
- P 1: Must let five die to save them requires killing one.
- P 2: Must not kill five if can kill one instead.
Conflicts arise in Bystander’s Two Options. Thomson expands her commitments by considering variations.
For example, numerous variations interpreted to explore moral nuances lead to emerging commitments.

Emerging Commitments: By exploring variations, Thomson introduces new commitments that must also be respected.
Reversal of Commitment in Step B4:
- Reversal from the initial commitment that state the bystander may divert the trolley.
- Evaluated through RE-criteria to justify whether the correspondent commitments remain credible.
- Conclusively indicated that both altruistic and non-altruistic bystanders must not divert.

The criteria for RE assessed against:
1. Consistency confirmed between commitments and system.
2. Resulting commitments respect the initial commitments.
3. Some commitments possess independent credibility.
4. Theoretical virtues are upheld through system simplification.
5. Lack of background theory assessment creates gaps in support.
6. The absence of alternative candidates for review leaves room for potential exploitation of error in judgments.
Although improvements made, the process is described as lacking a definitive RE state.

RE as a methodological tool was successfully applied to Thomson's argumentation.
RE criteria imposed constraints leading to the necessity for thorough assessment when revisions occurred.
The reconstruction of Thomson’s process was constructive, emphasizing the evolution of moral judgments over static beliefs.
Emerging commitments highlight the importance of broadening commitments throughout the RE process.

RE serves a robust framework for philosophical discourse, particularly in its application to the trolley problem.
Further exploration into additional proposals, alongside empirical studies investigating societal intuitions are suggested for a conclusive juxtaposition.
RE's effectiveness is bolstered through social engagement, enhancing the diversity and accuracy of encompassing moral debates.